Democrats and Iraq: A War the US Might Just Win
Neo-neocon writes at Pajamas Media:
Some Democrats in Congress were for the Iraq war before they were against it. But that was before some of them were for it again—at least, sort of.
If that sounds confusing, just think how confusing it must be for them. A number of those Democrats who originally voted to invade Iraq but then opposed the surge back in January—and even a few who had opposed the invasion of Iraq from the start—have been doing some fairly energetic scrambling lately to position themselves.
Initially their post-2006 election strategy seemed simple: let the Bush administration go for the surge, which was doomed to failure. At the same time deplore it and try to prevent it (or end it prematurely) by presenting him with legislation calling for troop withdrawal, early deadlines, and/or funding reductions.
The first course of action would allow its proponents to say “we told you so†when the surge inevitably failed. The second might placate the antiwar Democratic base even if Bush managed to withstand the pressure to withdraw. On the other hand, if successful in forcing an early pullout, the second strategy would mean that the spectacle of the bitter end in Iraq would come on Bush’s watch, where it rightly belonged.
But something funny happened on the way to General Petraeus’s September 2007 report to Congress: the surge begin to work.
And now the Democrats face a different prospect if the trend continues: they may have to acknowledge that they were wrong in opposing the surge (in certain cases, in writing it off before it truly began). They might even lose the 2008 election as a result. Or, if victorious, they would have to make tough decisions about how to prosecute the rest of the war. If the latter occurs they will, ironically, find themselves in what might be called “the Nixon positionâ€â€”that is, they’ll have to decide how to finish a difficult war that another party’s administration began.
I agree with the basic point of neo-neocon: that, suddenly, we see good news coming from Iraq and that the Democrats might be forced to change their position, at least a bit. One of the people who will have some room for change is, of course, Hillary Clinton. She will be able to go back, slowly, to her original position. Besides, Democrats can always point out that it took so long because of the mistakes made by Bush et al. Instead of doing that, however, they seem to target al-Maliki these days. For a while, that seemed to be a winner, until today when reports came out that al-Maliki got Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni leaders to unite and to make deals on some major issues. Suddenly, the situation had changed again.
Of course, it is way too early to declare success: but what one can declare is that progress has been made in the last couple of months and that, perhaps, just perhaps, the new strategy might actually pay off (something I did not expect either). The question is now whether people will choose to play political games, or whether they will look at the situation with an open-mind and a willingness to change their opinions if the reality on the ground changes as well.
In the end, whomever wins the presidency in 08, he or she will inherit the Iraq War. Bush will not withdraw the American troops from Iraq – perhaps a couple (he must), but certainly not all. And what then? What will the Democrats do once in power if progress has indeed been made and if it appears that more progress is likely to be made as long as the US keeps a significant amount of troops in Iraq? Again, it seems to me that the Democrat who will be least scared by recent developments is Hillary Clinton. She will be able to flip-flop a bit, without truly flip-flopping.
Question: if the situation in Iraq changes, how will this influence the Republican nomination? Will John McCain’s numbers in the polls improve?
18 Responses to “Democrats and Iraq: A War the US Might Just Win”
And the good news from Iraq is what? That the political situation is worse than ever? That adding 30,000 troops can lower the violence in the areas they patrol? That Sunnis that we are arming are starting their own little war with al Qaeda? There is no good news in Iraq, there is only varying degrees of horrible. Until we come to grips with that (are you listening Neo-cons?), we are just watching more of our troops killed and maimed.
MVG, Do you really believe the anti crowd would ever admit any improvement in Iraq? They will move the standards as much as they have to and condemn the effort no matter what sort of results are received. That is not to say I think te surge is “working”. I think the condition on the ground may be improving but it is the political situation in Iraq that seems the most critical and that I’m concerned about.
Aside from Brian Baird, who are all these Democrats who are changing their positions on Iraq? A couple of Congressmen, like Carl Levin, have said some positive things about the military aspects of the surge but have not changed their minds about the overall aspects of the Iraq War. O’Hanlon & Pollack’s musings have been discounted vigorously by Greenwald, Drum, etc. For example, O’Hanlon claims to have seen secret numbers showing a decrease in civilian casualties yet the AP counts up deaths day by day and sees an increase. If O’Hanlon’s numbers are accurate, why are they top secret?
Anyway, it seems to me that neo-neocon and others in the Republican camp are trying to spin Baird and O’Hanlon into a major tsunami of Democratic movement towards continuing to suppot the Iraq war. It’s wishful thinking.
I think the real agenda of this article is summed up in the last paragraph:
Are Republicans just prolonging the inevitable because they don’t want to “preside over the debacle”?
To quote Bill Maher “The term -The Surge is Working” is working.”
Has it had a positive effect? Maybe,in certain areas- but it seems to me just a band aid on a gaping wound- sure there are antibodies present fighting the infection- but it would serve the body better to close the wound and stitch it up. Look at a map of Bagdahd and see how neighborhoods are still divided Sunni and Shia, Do you really think that’s ever going to change without major civilian displacement?
Nobody “gets” how to deal with this admninistration.
Look at the Rumsfeld resignation and now the Gonzales resignation. The harder the opponent pushes, the stiffer the resistance. Let the pushing fade and the opportunity arises.
In this case, the louder the voices saying the “surge is not working” as the simple mantra, the longer it this administration will continue to wait for the time to be right.
Yes, you can continue to blame Bush for being dumb and think you’re doing the best you can for the situation. However, don’t accuse yourself of being politically clever.
Michael,
There is just no substantive evidence that the surge is improving conditions in Iraq. Sure, it’s helped clear out some Baghdad neighborhoods. And it’s helped a process already underway in Anbar before the surge began, wherein Sunni tribesmen turned against Al Qaeda. But the result overall has been predictable – by you no less! – that the terrorists would just move elsewhere. Violence against civilians in the North has doubled, according to the AP account. Civilian internal displacement has doubled – a sign that ethnic cleansings are continuing apace.
As for the politics, don’t tell me you really believe the “The five leaders representing Iraq’s major political communities …. affirmed the principle of collective leadership to help deal with the many challenges faced by Iraq,” is some major breakthrough. A committee on committees. This is all about Maliki trying to save his job. He spins about national reconciliation all the time but then continually fails to deliver (mostly because he cannot). The response from the ex-Ba’athists, not surprisingly, has been to reject the deal out of hand. More importantly, the Sunni bloc in Parliament has not moved an inch toward rejoining the government. This is not political progress. This is window dressing.
“They were for it before they were against it.” A simple term for the simple Bushian world in which we live. Intelligent people should be able to change their positions based upon facts. The fact is that in the run-up to this war intelligence was manipulated. It is also a fact that the prosecution of this was has been incompetent. Wouldn’t a change of position on this war be reasonable?
The fact that Bush FINALLY realized that more troops were needed years after everyone else came to that conclusion should not be a positive thing for Bush. The fact that more U.S. troops have improved security should also come as no surprise.
Let’s see what the Iraqis do with this improved security before we declare victory.
If Bush had listened to his generals advice instead of firing them for it, this war would already be won.
Cas
Nobody “gets†how to deal with this administration.
Maybe it’s because we can’t believe how this administration has flouted the rule of law, the Constitution, and general principle in favor of party loyalty and inbred fidelity. Bush could have been a contendah, had logic and reason and not obstinate thick-headedness ruled the day.
Bush has poisoned the well and salted the earth of a two-party system working together for the betterment of this country, Instead he has let his little army of yes-men divide this country for the sake of electioneering, and fomenting dissent amongst the ranks.
I absolutely agree. The fact that many anti-neocons are now just as desperate to avoid facts that do not support their predetermined conclusions as many neocons were desperate to avoid facts that did not support theirs is one of the great ironies of contemporary American politics. Look at the reaction that is commonplace everywhere in the “progressive blogosphere” including some of the above comments: “what good news? Let’s spin everything that comes in to be BAD…”
The neocons and the anti-neocons seem to me to be flip sides of the same dogmatically anti-intellectual coin.
It seems to me that spinning the surge, in either direction, is the direct result of spinning the war in the first place.
This has definitely been a war for the glory of Bush and the Republicans as the defenders of, democracy. Dissenters were aiding the enemy, remember? And they remained the abetttors of the enemy all the way up to the 2006 elections.
Now we see the sad results of that strategy. While our country is facing unprecendented challenges at home and abroad, the two parties are worrying about how to use the surge to benefit their political fortunes Once divided, a nation does not easily come together again. ,
While the political maneuverings are disheartening to watch, they were made inevitable long ago, in the run-up to the war.
Sen. Warner is almost a lone calm voice amid the cacophany.
Hey, all of us “Anti-war Democrats” want to see is some damn results. How many times have we pacified areas only to see them flare up again the second, the SECOND, we leave? Have any of you pro-surge folks been paying attn these last 4 years? Does none of this seem familiar to you? Good god, talk about gullible. You guys get fooled, then fooled again, then fooled again.
The Iraqi’s live there, they aren’t going anywhere. The only thing the controlling factions hate more than us is eachother. They DON’T want a democracy, and will never follow someone that got to power because we backed him. And we will not let anyone we don’t back get to power. Starting to see the conundrum yet?
When Baghdad has running water and electricity I’ll eat my words. Until then the surge has not succeeded and anyone who thinks it has should think a bit about exactly how small these crumbs of “victory” are in light of the effort expended and the overall war.
Jason, given that “neocons” support big government at home and big government abroad, wouldn’t anyone who opposes big government at home and abroad be an “anti-neocon”?
You seem to forget that some of the earliest critics of neoconservatism were paleoconservatives and libertarians, both of whom were marginalized within the Republican Party by neoconservatives.
If one believes that socialism is a poor way to run the country, is that person an “anti-socialist”?
Similarly, if one believes that neoconservatism is a poor way to run a country, is that person an “anti-neocon”?
Democrats=finger in the wind foreign policy.
Democrats=finger in the wind domestic policy.
Democrats=finger in the wind social policy.
Democrats=makes you wonder where those fingers have been.
In response to somebody…..
Republicans=one finger to the American public
Somebody,
Jim,
On some level, I think agree with both of you.
Jason,
Nice job avoiding fact-based critiques of the “surge is working!” cry. I noted some genuine successes – some pacified Baghdad neighborhoods, support for anti-AQI Sunnis in Anbar and parts of Diyala. But I pointed out that these changes don’t merit the triumphalism of the pro-war side. We’ve been down this road before – like the last four years.
Elrod,
You’re such a pessimist! You know the insurgents in their last throes! We’re but a Friedman unit away from victory!